We went to Babies R Us this weekend. It is the first time we have been there since, well, Matthew was an actual real life baby. I mean seriously. I think he was like a year old and really at the point he was more of toddler considering he had been walking for about three months by then but you know tomato-tomoto, semantics and all.
We actually do need "stuff" for the baby. We got rid of several items we either disliked or smelled bad (can you guess the origin of that one?!) We have also decided we need to get some things that we did not have when Matthew was a wee tot. I made a list to keep track of what we needed just in case. Like we are going to get a basset/co sleeper/ moses basket of some sort for the 1st few weeks. That is going to be somewhat expensive and I wished we had just bought one for Matthew when we realized what a pain in the rump it was for me to go back and forth all night to his room. We need a new bouncer - I have two in mind. We had the aquarium one before and it never worked properly plus it was a little obnoxious. I want something that a baby can just sit or sleep in since that is mostly what Matthew did the first go around and it was the only way I showered with Matthew! That means it is a must have ;)
I do not even want to try to comprehend what I will need if we have a baby girl. There are numerous items I can salvage from Matthew's newborn stage because we had no idea what he was going to be so we have lots of the "gender neutral" greens & yellows but bah to that. That kid's wearing PINK 24/7 if I have my way!
The reality of the weekend we quickly discovered is that we have a lot of expenses coming up that we knew about but did not really start to think about seriously until the past few weeks. First, the costs of the prenatal visit and actual you know birthing of a baby. Yikes. It was very expensive last time even with insurance. On a slightly related note, we were watching Suze Orman recently (I wish I could find the link but I cannot) and the person calling in was asking about whether they could afford the fertility treatments for #2 while they were still paying for #1 at the cost of $35,000... on a fairly low combined income. Our jaws were on the floor in disbelief. Of course, Suze said to wait and pay off the treatments for the first child 1st. I had no idea about the costs for treatments (or that is even true) - I guess intellectually I knew it had to be expensive but still...
At any rate, we need to get Matthew new furniture for his room (or at least a bed). In addition to child expenses, there are housing taxes to be paid and fingers crossed lordy please let us get $ back from taxes this year (though I having this sense we will not & will likely owe...) Finally, there are child care costs to think about postpartum. Basically we came to the conclusion that the only thing that would really work is hiring a nanny (legally) this time for Baby Pancake (LONG story behind both the decision to go with a nanny and the legal aspects of that... Another day.) There were several home projects we were planning to do but in light of the "list" we made we determined those would/could wait. It is amazing to me that you never think about the cost of having an actual real life human being until it is upon you! I mean we thought about it in theory but I also wish I would have started buying the stuff we needed last year because dang does it adds up fast!
SO we trudged down to Babies R Us, super store a la baby. I am not a fan. I never have been but it has everything I need in one place for the most part. I find the whole store a little surreal and oddly disquieting. I want to just run in and flee with my baby goods without actually taking it all in. I do not relish in the time spent there the way I might in say a Super Target. We bought a new diaper pail, I needed a cover for my Snoogle since I some how managed to give the old cover to Goodwill in a fit of cleaning last Spring (DOH!), a baby bathing device (our old one was a hand me down and it was hard plastic - we both hated it), another changing pad cover (SO SOFT I want to snuggle with it!) as well as two items that Matthew picked out.
Matthew has been very sweet about the baby. He kisses my tummy and has even been known to sing a tune to the baby! We are trying to keep baby talk to a minimum but I do not buy into the wait until the time is closer for the baby to come. Matthew is just too aware of it all. This is made harder by the fact that every time Kevin and I are talking about Baby Pancake Matthew pipes up - "What are you talking about ma/daddy?" We just cannot lie entirely about the event to him. It is not like we talking about 24/7 - mostly just here & there. After all it is a 6 month wait yet...
Kevin asked Matthew if he wanted to pick something out so he found Rocky the Lobster. Then I watched him do this. He was running around all willy nilly playing with this & that. He was really being a lovey boy - hugging and kissing me, wanting to be held. Than he went up to a display for the new Sassy wooden toys. He ran his hands over the toys. Picked up the one that he ultimately chose, looked it over, looked at the other toys and than walked back over to our cart and placed it gently in there. I about died from the sweetness of this gesture. Kevin asked him later if he picked out some good stuff for Baby Pancake and he smiled sweetly and nodded with a big grin. I am just proud of him. I know there will be rough moments but I love these moments that I can hang on to and remember when there are those rough patches. He will be such a good big brother I just know it! As many nerves as I may have about #2, watching him perform that simple act just calmed the fears infinitely.
Also, after Kevin & I talked about the costs/expenses we will have this coming year, we also decided that rather than flipping out or worrying about money, we would just take it one thing at time. Each month we are planning to buy a few things that we need/want and leave it at that. Just so that we do not come up on month 8 and have a millions expenses and worse yet come up a baby makes two and have another million expenses. I feel like knowing the sex will make all of this easier. If it is a girl, we can prepare for that and if it is not, we do not need to worry in the clothing department for the most part. I like to layer anyway so even though it will be somewhat different in terms of the time of year the baby is being born in relation to Matthew I figure I can find a way to extend clothing options. It will all be OKAY!
What about you? Did you do anything exciting (or not so exciting) this weekend?
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Monday, January 14, 2008
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
$290k Baby!
After my long LONG 2nd baby post yesterday, I was met with this article on MSN. The following quote comes from it:
Every newborn child is a bundle of joy. But you'd better have a bundle of cash on hand if you want to raise one.
Followed by this statement:
Families making more than $74,900 a year will spend a whopping $289,380 to raise a second child born in 2006 through age 17, estimates the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Higher-income families in urban areas in the West will spend the most, $304,740.
Makes sense, right? The more you make the more you spend... It is sort of true I suppose... We all want what is best for our kiddos. It doesn't matter how much you make... As this article notes:
Though not as steep, the figures for lower-income families are just as unsettling: $197,700 for families earning $44,500 to $74,900 and $143,790 for families making less than that. That breaks down to nearly $15,800 a year from birth to age 2 for families in the $74,900-plus income bracket. This is no back-of-the-envelope guesstimate. The survey involves interviews with about 5,000 households, four times a year.
Of course the more children you, the more money spent on each child goes down... Seems like a good thing right?!
The cost per child goes down for larger families. A child with no siblings costs 24% more than one with a sibling, for example. As a percentage of household expenditures, an average couple will spend 26% on an only child, 42% on two children and 48% on three children. As the child ages, costs rise through age 5, fall slightly between ages 6 and 11, and then top out at $16,970 a year from ages 15 to 17.
My friend, Kim (ironically with the last name SCHMIDT), had it all when we were growing up! She was an only child. Her parents were spending almost a quarter of their money, if not more, on her whereas I was having something like 1/16 spent on me (and the hand me downs - oh gawd... my sister was born in 1965 and I was born in 1973... I spent much of my youth looking like I belonged in another era, literally!!!)
Gotta LOVE that the article goes on to say, we may even SPEND more...:
Sobering? No doubt. Misleading? Yes. The study doesn't take into account certain expenses incurred by some families, such as heavy medical bills or pricey private schools. It's a composite average, and, by definition, that means your numbers will be a little (possibly a lot) higher or lower. And because the survey ends at age 17, it doesn't take into account the millions of college students who are supported in part or in full by their parents. In 2020, you'll need nearly $225,000 for a private college or $105,000 for an in-state public university.
We started Matthew's college fund when he was something like four weeks old and Connie, the nice lady from Edward Jones, ran the numbers for in-state and out of state tuition for college on our little darlin' - talk about sobering!!! It was not even 'WELL that is a long way off and he could turn out to be the next Peyton or something like that...' It was more like 'OMG, all extra money we have DIVERT DIVERT DIVERT!'
Additionally:
The study also doesn't consider lost income that occurs when one parent stops working or takes off several years to raise the children during the early years -- or takes a lesser-paying job with more-predictable hours.
"Look on the bright side: There are ways to trim the expenses."
Sigh.
Every newborn child is a bundle of joy. But you'd better have a bundle of cash on hand if you want to raise one.
Followed by this statement:
Families making more than $74,900 a year will spend a whopping $289,380 to raise a second child born in 2006 through age 17, estimates the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Higher-income families in urban areas in the West will spend the most, $304,740.
Makes sense, right? The more you make the more you spend... It is sort of true I suppose... We all want what is best for our kiddos. It doesn't matter how much you make... As this article notes:
Though not as steep, the figures for lower-income families are just as unsettling: $197,700 for families earning $44,500 to $74,900 and $143,790 for families making less than that. That breaks down to nearly $15,800 a year from birth to age 2 for families in the $74,900-plus income bracket. This is no back-of-the-envelope guesstimate. The survey involves interviews with about 5,000 households, four times a year.
Of course the more children you, the more money spent on each child goes down... Seems like a good thing right?!
The cost per child goes down for larger families. A child with no siblings costs 24% more than one with a sibling, for example. As a percentage of household expenditures, an average couple will spend 26% on an only child, 42% on two children and 48% on three children. As the child ages, costs rise through age 5, fall slightly between ages 6 and 11, and then top out at $16,970 a year from ages 15 to 17.
My friend, Kim (ironically with the last name SCHMIDT), had it all when we were growing up! She was an only child. Her parents were spending almost a quarter of their money, if not more, on her whereas I was having something like 1/16 spent on me (and the hand me downs - oh gawd... my sister was born in 1965 and I was born in 1973... I spent much of my youth looking like I belonged in another era, literally!!!)
Gotta LOVE that the article goes on to say, we may even SPEND more...:
Sobering? No doubt. Misleading? Yes. The study doesn't take into account certain expenses incurred by some families, such as heavy medical bills or pricey private schools. It's a composite average, and, by definition, that means your numbers will be a little (possibly a lot) higher or lower. And because the survey ends at age 17, it doesn't take into account the millions of college students who are supported in part or in full by their parents. In 2020, you'll need nearly $225,000 for a private college or $105,000 for an in-state public university.
We started Matthew's college fund when he was something like four weeks old and Connie, the nice lady from Edward Jones, ran the numbers for in-state and out of state tuition for college on our little darlin' - talk about sobering!!! It was not even 'WELL that is a long way off and he could turn out to be the next Peyton or something like that...' It was more like 'OMG, all extra money we have DIVERT DIVERT DIVERT!'
Additionally:
The study also doesn't consider lost income that occurs when one parent stops working or takes off several years to raise the children during the early years -- or takes a lesser-paying job with more-predictable hours.
"Look on the bright side: There are ways to trim the expenses."
Sigh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)